Jorge DeMaria

Bladder Training Video versus Standard Urotherapy for Bladder and Bowel Dysfunction: A Noninferiority Randomized, Controlled Trial

Purpose: We evaluated whether an animated bladder training video was as effective as standard individual urotherapy in improving bladder/bowel symptoms. Materials and Methods: Patients 5 to 10 years old who scored greater than 11 on the bladder/bowel Vancouver questionnaire were included in a noninferiority randomized, controlled trial. Children with vesicoureteral reflux, neuropathic bladder, learning disabilities, recent urotherapy or primary nocturnal enuresis were excluded from analysis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard urotherapy or watch a bladder training video in clinic using centralized blocked randomization schemes. Bladder/bowel symptoms were evaluated at baseline and 3‐month followup by intent to treat analysis. A sample size of 150 patients ensured a 3.5 difference in mean symptomology scores between the groups, which was accepted as the noninferiority margin. Results: Of 539 screened patients 173 (37%) were eligible for study and 150 enrolled. A total of 143 patients (95%) completed the trial, 5 (4%) were lost to followup and 2 (1%) withdrew. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Baseline mean ± SD symptomology scores were 19.9 ± 5.5 for the bladder training video and 19.7 ± 6.0 for standard urotherapy. At 3 months the mean symptomology scores for the bladder training video and standard urotherapy were reduced to 14.4 ± 6.5 and 13.8 ± 6.0, respectively (p = 0.54). The mean difference was 0.6 (95% CI –1.4–2.6). The upper 95% CI limit of 2.6 did not exceed the preset 3.5 noninferiority margin. Conclusions: The bladder training video was not inferior to standard urotherapy in reducing bladder/bowel symptoms in children 5 to 10 years old. The video allows families to have free access to independently review bladder training concepts as often as necessary.

Misuse of ultrasound for palpable undescended testis by primary care providers: A prospective study

INTRODUCTION Although previous evidence has shown that ultrasound is unreliable to diagnose undescended testis, many primary care providers (PCP) continue to misuse it. We assessed the performance of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool for palpable undescended testis, as well as the diagnostic agreement between PCP and pediatric urologists. METHODS We performed a prospective observational cohort study between 2011 and 2013 for consecutive boys referred with a diagnosis of undescended testis to our tertiary pediatric hospital. Patients referred without an ultrasound and those with non-palpable testes were excluded. Data on referring diagnosis, pediatric urology examination and ultrasound reports were analyzed. RESULTS Our study consisted of 339 boys. Of these, patients without an ultrasound (n = 132) and those with non-palpable testes (n = 38) were excluded. In the end, there were 169 pateints in this study. Ultrasound was performed in 50% of referred boys showing 256 undescended testis. The mean age at time of referral was 45 months. When ultrasound was compared to physical examination by the pediatric urologist, agreement was only 34%. The performance of ultrasound for palpable undescended testis was: sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 16%; positive predictive value = 34%; negative predictive value = 100%; positive likelihood ratio = 1.2; and negative likelihood ratio = 0. Diagnosis of undescended testis by PCP was confirmed by physical examination in 30% of cases, with 70% re-diagnosed with normal or retractile testes. CONCLUSION Ultrasound performed poorly to assess for palpable undescended testis in boys and should not be used. Although the study has important limitations, there is an increasing need for education and evidence-based guidelines for PCP in the management of undescended testis.